Tuesday, 29 April 2014

As
shipyard gains in confidence building the Scorpene, it hopes for a second line
of six improved Scorpenes

By Ajai
Shukla

Business Standard, 29th April 14

Project 75
is one of India’s most closely guarded military projects, almost as
inaccessible to outsiders as the nuclear ballistic missile submarine, INS Arihant,
nearing completion at Visakhapatnam. In a giant shed in the East Yard of Mazagon
Dock Ltd, Mumbai (MDL), a 200-feet-long, cigar-shaped, metal cylinder is the
first of six conventionally powered Scorpene submarines that the Indian Navy contracted
to build with Franco-Spanish company, Armaris (since taken over by French shipbuilding
major, DCNS).

The boat
(as submariners call their vessels) is obviously close to completion --- a
small remaining gap at the rear will be filled by the section that holds the
engine. Nearby, a second Scorpene is taking shape, metallic rings being welded
together to form a hull. In the shed next door, a third vessel is racing towards
completion.

Hundreds of
MDL workmen swarm over the scaffolding that encases the three submarines, overseen
by 25-30 French experts from DCNS. They are fitting the wiring, piping and
combat systems that must function silently and efficiently in the most taxing
underwater conditions.

Business
Standard has repeatedly applied to visit this facility, but each time it has
been turned down. The description above comes from a trusted source with
intimate access to the Scorpene project. The ministry of defence (MoD)
discourages the media after years of negative publicity over a project running
four years late.

Yet MDL’s
current chairman, Rear Admiral (Retired) Rahul Shrawat --- who inherited the
Scorpene delay when he assumed charge of MDL --- is upbeat. He promises the
first submarine by September 2016, and to deliver the next five Scorpenes at
nine-month intervals rather than the one-year intervals contracted.

Speaking to
Business Standard, Shrawat promised: “We will launch the first Scorpene by Sept
2015 and deliver it to the navy within a year, i.e. by Sept 2016. The subsequent
boats will be delivered at nine-month intervals, with the sixth and final vessel
joining the fleet by June 2020.

Shrawat
admits this is an aggressive timeline without any buffers for unexpected
delays. As Business Standard first reported (Scorpene tangled in govt web, December 19, 2009) Project 75 was delayed
by a sloppy Rs 18,798 crore contract that made MDL responsible for buying Rs
2,700 crore worth of Scorpene internal equipment from DCNS. When MDL ordered,
DCNS cited inflation to raise the price to Rs 4,700 crore. The ensuing
negotiations, and the lengthy processes for fresh government sanctions for
added costs, caused over two years of delay.

“Many
significant items are yet to be delivered to us, even for the first submarine. This
is a big criticality, but we will meet the challenge,” says Shrawat confidently.

The
Scorpene delay is part of a critical shortfall of operational submarines with
the navy. The fleet has just ten Sindhughosh-class (Russian Kilo-class)
submarines, and four Shishumar-class (German HDW) submarines, of which just
9-10 were operational at any time. The availability fell to 7-8 after two
recent submarine accidents --- the sinking of INS Sindhurakshak in Mumbai after
a cataclysmic explosion on board that killed 18 crewmembers last August; and a fire
on board INS Sindhuratna in February that killed two officers and led to the
resignation of the navy chief.

Even so, Project
75 has created confidence about MDL’s new ability to build submarines. The
shipyard is readying to build a second line of six submarines under the new
Project 75I, worth an estimated Rs 50,000 crore ($8.25 billion). Government
sanction is being processed for Project 75I.

Rather than
floating a global tender for Project 75I, Shrawat wants to take advantage of
the experience and expertise gained during Project 75. Instead of having a
fourth type of submarine in the navy’s fleet (in addition to the Kilo-class;
HDW and Scorpene), MDL sees benefit in a more modern Scorpene with air
independent propulsion (AIP) and land-attack missiles that the Project 75 vessels
lack. Only the last two Project 75 vessels are slated to have AIP.

“Most naval
policymakers would not consider it prudent to have a fourth type of
conventional submarine in the fleet. I’m sure the government will feel the same.
So why not build more Scorpenes; improved with AIP and land attack missiles”,
says Shrawat.

The defence
ministry led by AK Antony for the last eight years consistently shrank from
such decisions in favour of a single vendor, preferring the path of open
tendering even when it created operational drawbacks, like a multiplicity of
platforms. The next government’s orientation will be keenly watched.

Another key
factor in the Project 75I decision would be the willingness of foreign
governments to supply submarines equipped with land attack missiles. The
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) proscribes the transfer of missiles
with ranges of 300 kilometres and more.

Meanwhile,
Indian defence shipyards are jostling fiercely for a share of Project 75I. The
navy wants two submarines built abroad and inducted quickly into service, with
the remaining four being built by MDL and the newly acquired defence shipyard,
Hindustan Shipyard Ltd (HSL). But L&T cites its key role in building the
nuclear submarine, INS Arihant, to argue that it should build at least one
Project 75I submarine.

Monday, 28 April 2014

India's Agni-2 ballistic missile on display at New Delhi on Republic Day

by Ajai Shukla

Business Standard, 29th Apr 14

The BJP’s
election manifesto has triggered a long-overdue discussion of India’s
decade-old nuclear weapons doctrine. Some analysts interpreted the BJP’s
undertaking that it would “revise and update” the doctrine as an intention to
revisit India’s No-First-Use (NFU) commitment. Narendra Modi, the BJP’s prime
ministerial candidate, quickly denied any such intention.

The debate,
however, has come alive. Last fortnight, this column had urged reconsidering
NFU and also India’s commitment to “massive retaliation”, which binds New Delhi
to respond to nuclear, biological or chemical weapons attack on Indian targets
anywhere with all-out nuclear strikes on the aggressor’s cities that could kill
tens of millions. Since both India’s regional adversaries, Pakistan and China,
possess a robust second-strike capability, or a nuclear arsenal that would
survive an all-out Indian attack, equal retaliation should be expected across
India. Instead of this mayhem, which Indian policymakers would probably shrink
from triggering anyway, I argued that New Delhi should opt for a “flexible
response” that would allow decision-makers more credible options. I pointed out
that American doctrine had graduated from massive retaliation to flexible
response in the 1950s and 1960s after US strategists realised the inherent credibility
shortfall in a threat that consigned both sides to “mutual assured
destruction”, appropriately shortened to MAD.

On April
23, Shyam Saran, the National Security Advisory Board chief, weighed in on
these pages, flatly rejecting doctrinal change. He declared that nuclear bombs
are not weapons of war, but of mass destruction. A tactical nuclear strike on,
say, a tank column (counter-force targeting) that killed a few dozen soldiers
was, he suggested, in the same league as a strategic strike on a city that killed
millions of civilians (counter-value targeting). He quoted a 1950s American
game theory expert who postulated that even the smallest nuclear strike would
inevitably escalate to an all-out nuclear conflagration. While rightly averring
that doctrine must be in line with a country’s nuclear forces and command
structures, Saran questionably concluded that the configuration of our nuclear assets
--- the strategic triad of land, sea and airborne nuclear forces --- made
doctrinal change difficult. It is hard to agree with that; were force
structures to shape doctrine it would be the tail wagging the dog.

In this column,
I shall point out that India’s NFU declaration sits uneasily with the
understanding that China constitutes a growing security threat. India’s nuclear
deterrent --- its last defence against a massive conventional attack by China
--- becomes unusable with a declared NFU policy. The country weaker in
conventional forces has always used a nuclear deterrent to hold off the
stronger. India’s declared NFU devalues our nuclear deterrent against Chinese
attack.

The choice
between massive retaliation and flexible response is more complex and relates
mainly to Pakistan. Massive retaliation is a simple policy, requiring standard
weapons and simple but secure command structures. Since flexible response
requires a broader menu of weapons and structures, which create options for
decision-makers, it also arouses non-proliferation concerns. Advocates of
massive retaliation forget --- in their understandable wish, perhaps, to
portray India as a “responsible nuclear power” --- that India’s basic
deterrence objective against Pakistan must be to ensure that our superior
conventional forces have the time window they need for punishing serious
Pakistani provocation (e.g. another Kargil, a big terror strike, a political
assassination). Pakistan’s deep fear of being overrun by Indian conventional
forces causes it to position low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) with
its military reserve formations; one of these might be used to warn India to halt
an otherwise unstoppable conventional offensive. Instead of immediately escalating
to a mutual holocaust, India’s escalation should be gradual, allowing
conventional operations to continue until conflict termination objectives are
achieved. The nuclear deterrent must be refashioned to ensure dominance at each
rung of the escalation ladder, with massive retaliation always a lingering threat.

Like with
America in the early 1950s, India’s massive retaliation doctrine faces a
credibility deficit. A Pakistani threat to use a TNW on its own soil against
Indian military targets --- killing at the most a few tens of our soldiers --- would
be obviously more plausible than the Indian counter-threat of “massive
retaliation”, which involves destroying multiple Pakistani cities and the
deaths of millions of civilians. With Pakistan’s second-strike capability likely
to cause equal damage in India, Indian obviously rational (and historically
ultra-cautious) decision-makers are unlikely to prevail in a MAD chicken game
with Islamabad.

New Delhi’s
commitment to massive retaliation also has much to do with keeping the military
out of nuclear policymaking. Flexible response, which involves complicating the
calculus of potential opponents, would require our civilian decision-makers to master
a broader range of technicalities, and our military to play a larger role in
shaping and manning the deterrent. Instead, our civilian decision-makers content
themselves with a nuclear doctrine so simple --- even simplistic --- that the
military itself is largely superfluous. By sticking doggedly to massive
retaliation, India’s leadership successfully keeps the military out of nuclear
strategizing.

In the
final balance our nuclear weapons doctrine remains unconvincing because
decision-makers fail to separate ideology from realism. India’s pioneering role
in global disarmament is well known; but war is not a UN General Assembly
debate or a Conference on Disarmament meeting. Phrases like: “Nuclear weapons
are not weapons of war; they are weapons of mass destruction”, are useful
debating gambits in these forums. Yet, it would be self-defeating to be fooled
by our own rhetoric. Away from the seminar rooms, especially during the
feverish decision making in any conflict, both sides get to vote on whether
nukes are usable weapons of war. If Pakistan decides they are --- and the addition
of Tactical Nuclear Weapons (TNWs) into its arsenal suggests exactly that --- then
New Delhi’s fervent insistence that nuclear weapons are unusable is mere
wishful thinking. The new government must initiate a comprehensive review of
our nuclear weapons doctrine and posture.

Sunday, 27 April 2014

According to a
Defence R&D Organisation (DRDO) press release, “two Akash missiles from the
production lot of the Air Force version of Akash missile system were test fired
in two separated tests in modes on Saturday the 26th April 2014,
successfully intercepting the fast moving incoming and receding maneuvering
targets respectively, towed by Lakshya pilot less target aircraft.”

Akash Project
Director, G Chandramouli, stated that all the stated mission objectives have
been met and the missile system has performed as expected.

He said, “A
path has been created for continuous production of sophisticated surface to air
missile systems in the country through this programme.”

The IAF intends
to buy at least eight squadrons of Akash missile systems. Following that lead,
the Indian Army to has placed an order for two Akash regiments. These orders add
up to Rs 23,000 crore, (US $3.8 billion), with systems worth 3,500 crore ($577
million) having already been delivered.

Two Akash missile squadrons
have already been inducted into the IAF. Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL),
Bangalore is prime contractor for building eight Akash missile squadrons for
Indian Air Force (IAF). Meanwhile, Bharat Dynamics Limited (BDL), Hyderabad is
the prime contractor for building two Akash missile regiments for the army.
For both these versions, the missiles themselves are built by BDL, while
radar and electronics are produced by BEL.

The 3-Dimensional
Central Acquisition Radar (3D-CAR), which is the heart of the Akash missile
system, is in continuous production and is being inducted into all the three
Services.

The Akash is a mobile,
multi-directional, multi-target, point/area defence system that can
simultaneously engage multiple air targets in a fully autonomous mode of
operation. The hardware and software integration of various weapon
system elements permits automated management of air defence functions such as
programmable surveillance, target detection, target acquisition, tracking,
identification, threat evaluation, prioritization, assignment and engagement.

The Akash system can be integrated
with the overall air defence command and control networks through secure
communication links. The system is also provided with advanced ECCM features.

The modular, mobile Akash system
is mounted either in wheeled trucks or trailers. Its multi-function phased
array radar has significant resistance to active and passive jamming. The DRDO
says, “All air defence functions such as classification, threat evaluation,
prioritization and missile launch are automated, by virtue of usage of state of
the art computation platforms and softwares. The system is configurable
to adapt to future requirement.”

The DRDO claims, “The
weapon system is cost effective relative to equivalent systems in the global
market.”

Thirteen
DRDO labs, nineteen Public Sector Units (PSUs), five Ordnance Factories (OFs)
and more than 200 small, medium, and few large scale private industries have participated
in the development and production of the Akash missile system.

Wednesday, 23 April 2014

The space between the Su-30MKI's engines where the Brahmos will be fitted

By Ajai
Shukla

HAL, Nashik

Business Standard, 23rd Apr 14

There will
soon be a more practical way of retaliating against a foreign-backed terror
attack on Indian soil than mobilizing our 16 lakh-strong military for a war
that might trigger a nuclear conflagration. Instead, New Delhi will soon be
able to punish terrorists harbouring across the border with surgical strikes
from Brahmos cruise missile, fitted on Sukhoi-30MKI fighters.

The supersonic
Brahmos, jointly developed by India and Russia, already equips Indian warships
and artillery units. Yet its limited range of 295 kilometres means that targets
far across the border are out of reach. That will change once Hindustan
Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), Nashik, fits the Brahmos onto the Sukhoi-30MKI fighter, allowing
the missile to be carried for over a thousand kilometres and then launched at a
target another 295 kilometres away.

Parked in a
hangar in HAL’s Nashik facility is the first Su-30MKI that is being modified to
carry the Brahmos in the cavity between the aircraft’s giant engines. Later
this year, ground tests will begin at Nashik. If successful, the aircraft will
be ferried to Rajasthan to actually test-fire the missile in Pokhran. If all
goes well, the air-launched Brahmos would enter operational service next year.

While HAL
modifies the aircraft, the Indo-Russian joint venture that has developed the Brahmos
is finalising and certifying an air-launched version of the missile.

Developing
an air-launched Brahmos has not been easy, given its weight (2.5 tonnes) and
size (8 metres long, 0.7 metres in diameter). The Indian Air Force (IAF) challenged
both Sukhoi and HAL to propose competing solutions for integrating missile with
aircraft. The Indian solution won out handily, and a contract was signed with
HAL in January. Already the Brahmos has been mounted under the Su-30MKI’s
belly, secured on two mounting stations that replace hard points that were designed
to carry ten 250-kilogramme bombs.

“The
Russians are most interested in how HAL is integrating the Brahmos. We beat
them out in the contract and now they want to know what we’re doing,” says RP
Khapli, who is leading HAL’s design team in the project.

Nobody will
acknowledge this, but modifying a Su-30MKI to carry a 2,500 kg missile is a big
step towards rendering it capable of carrying and delivering a thermonuclear
bomb.

A Brahmos
air launch is a relatively straightforward affair. Before take-off, the target
coordinates are fed into the missile. When the Su-30MKI reaches the designated
launch point, probably just short of the border to maximise range, the pilot
releases the Brahmos. The missile drops clear of the aircraft before its
booster ignites; then, powered by a ramjet, it quickly accelerates to more than
twice the speed of sound providing little reaction time to enemy air defence
fighters and missiles. Guided by navigation satellites, its inertial navigation
system takes it precisely to its target.

Besides
punitive strikes on terrorist targets, an air-launched Brahmos would also be
the weapon of choice for striking heavily defended targets --- such as enemy
air bases or headquarters --- without risking a manned aircraft. The Su-30MKI
would release the Brahmos from a safe distance of 295 kilometres and then head
back to base even as the missile heads for the target.

Integrating
the Brahmos with the Su-30MKI encountered several technical challenges. IIT
Mumbai assisted with studies in “computational fluid dynamics” to ascertain
that the giant missile did not create disruptive airflow that would destabilise
the fighter or starve its two engines of air.

HAL had already experienced such difficulties whilst
upgrading the MiG-21BIS with four new missiles. That fighter’s engine had to be
modified with an anti-surge system to avoid shut off. This experience, say HAL
designers, came in handy.

Besides the
Brahmos project, HAL’s Aircraft Upgrade R&D Centre (AURDC) has
developed over 40 modifications to enhance the performance of the Su-30MKI. It
has also developed almost 400 types of ground equipment, such as oxygen
chargers, nitrogen chargers, mobile air charging trolleys and cooling trolleys.

“We are not just building aircraft for the IAF, but are also
a knowledge partner for indigenization,” says Khapli.

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

The Sukhoi-30MKI production line at Nashik which rolled out 15 fighters in 2013-14

By Ajai
Shukla

MiG Complex, HAL, Nashik

Business Standard, 22nd April 14

Walking
along the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) production line at its Nashik
plant is a good way to realize how gargantuan the Sukhoi-30MKI fighter is. Yet,
its sheer size, the sleekness of its lines and the menacing “bird-of-prey”
droop of its nose are not why this fighter is the backbone of the Indian Air
Force (IAF). The Su-30MKI is pure performance --- it is astonishingly agile, a
favourite in aerobatics displays; and its 8-tonne armament payload makes it a
formidable multi-role aircraft. It has the missiles to protect itself while
flying on a mission, the bombs and rockets to comprehensively pulverize a
target, the electronics to deceive enemy radars, and can return home while
warding off enemy fighters.

The IAF is
keen to quickly induct the 272 Su-30MKI fighters it has on order, especially
since the Rafale contract remains uncertain. But HAL --- which delivered an
impressive 15 fighters last year --- says completion would be possible only by
about 2019, a two-and-a-half-year delay from the 2016-17 target that was set
when the contract was signed with Russia in 2000.

A total of
222 Su-30MKIs are to be built in Nashik. Till date, 149 have been delivered to
the IAF. HAL will have to continue building 15 fighters per year to deliver the
remaining 73 aircraft in 5 years.

The delay stems
from the IAF’s wish to make the Su-30MKI the high-performance fighter that it eventually
turned out to be. Unsatisfied with the Su-30 initially supplied by Russia, the
IAF demanded improved aerodynamic performance. Russia added canards and a
thrust-vectoring engine, the AL-31FP, which could push the fighter in multiple
directions, adding agility. All this took time and Sukhoi transferred the
technology two-and-a-half years late.

Business
Standard was granted access to HAL’s Nashik division, the birthplace of multiple
Russian fighters that have given teeth to the Indian Air Force (IAF) since the
1970s. This factory was set up in 1964 to build the MiG-21 E7FL, now retired, followed
by another variant, the MiG-21M, then the MiG-21BIS. Later, HAL Nashik built
the MiG-27, and then upgraded 123 MiG-21BIS fighters into the BISON, which is
still in service. Finally, it upgraded 40 MiG-27s, an entirely indigenous
upgrade that has kept the aging fighter in service till today.

HAL’s
Nashik unit is still called the MiG Complex --- ironic, given that it builds a
Sukhoi fighter, the greatest rival of Mikoyan, builder of the legendary MiGs. The
Su-30 variants, Russia’s most successful recent design, have wiped out Mikoyan
from the global marketplace. Compared to some 800 Sukhoi-27 and Sukhoi-30
variants bought by the air forces of Russia, China, India, Ukraine, Malaysia,
Algeria, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Vietnam, only
a handful of MiG fighters find customers today.

Yet India
remains a Mikoyan loyalist --- of sorts. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is
upgrading its fleet of 60-odd MiG-29S fighters; while the Indian Navy has
bought 45 MiG-29K/KUB fighters for its aircraft carriers, a $2 billion purchase
that has breathed life into the fading Russian company.

Yet this is
small change compared to the massive order of 272 Su-30MKIs, which started out
as a bargain at $30 million apiece, but which are now priced at $75 million
each.

Business
Standard spoke to HAL officials to find out why prices have risen despite an
ongoing indigenisation programme that has met all its targets. The reason, it
emerges, lies in the nature of the manufacturing contract signed with Sukhoi,
which was to see a progressive enhancement of Indian content through four
phases. Yet, even though Phase IV has recently been achieved, this provides for
only limited indigenization. While Sukhoi was bound to transfer technology for
building the fighter, the contract mandates that all raw materials ---
including titanium blocks and forgings, aluminium and steel plates, etc ---
must be sourced from Russia.

This means
that, of the 43,000 items that go into the Sukhoi-30MKI, some 5,800 consist of large
metal plates, castings and forgings that must contractually be provided by
Russia. HAL then transforms the raw material into aircraft components, using
the manufacturing technology transferred by Sukhoi.

That
results in massive wastage of metal. For example, a 486 kilogramme titanium bar
supplied by Russia is whittled down to a 15.9 kg tail component. The titanium
shaved off is wasted. Similarly a wing bracket that weighs just 3.1 kg has to
be fashioned from a titanium forging that weighs 27 kg.

Furthermore,
the contract stipulates that standard components like nuts, bolts, screws and
rivets --- a total of 7,146 items --- must all be sourced from Russia.

The reason
for this, explain HAL officials, is that manufacturing sophisticated raw
materials like titanium extrusions in India is not economically viable for the tiny
quantities needed for Su-30MKI fighters.

“For raw
materials production to be commercially viable, India’s aerospace companies
would need to produce in larger volumes. That means they must become global
suppliers, as a part of a major aerospace company’s global supply chain.
Licensed manufacture for our own needs does not create adequate demand,” says
Daljeet Singh, HAL Nashik’s manufacturing head.

Still, HAL
builds about 10,000 of the 30,000 fabricated components in each fighter. A
significant percentage of this is outsourced to private sector vendors in
aerospace hubs like Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai, Pune and Coimbatore.

Once the
last of the 222 Su-30MKIs to be built in Nashik roll off the lines, this
facility will build the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), which HAL and
Sukhoi will jointly develop. An estimated 214 FGFAs are planned to be built
here.

Wednesday, 16 April 2014

Lt Gen Ravi Dastane is the latest in a seemingly unending line of senior officers going to court over promotions denied

By Ajai Shukla

Business Standard, 16th Apr 14

With India on track to get a new government next month, the
army --- arguably the country’s most admired institution --- is mired in
embarrassing uncertainty about who will succeed General Bikram Singh as army
chief on July 31, 2014.

The last succession, when Gen VK Singh handed over command
to Gen Bikram Singh on May 31, 2012, was mired in controversy and lawsuits.
This time again the Supreme Court is hearing a petition by a senior officer,
Lieutenant General Ravi Dastane, who cites an array of policy violations to
allege that the army and ministry of defence (MoD) have denied him the right to
be an army commander. If the apex court rules in his favour, Dastane will be in
consideration to be the next army chief. He will be the senior-most army
commander, although Lt Gen Dalbir Singh will still be the senior-most
lieutenant general.

At fault is the army’s and MoD’s failure to create transparent
promotion policies for its top-most appointments. The Armed Forces Tribunal
(AFT) --- the MoD’s departmental judicial tribunal --- in rejecting Dastane’s
petition last September, embarrassingly noted that the absence of a clear
promotion policy was repeatedly bringing aggrieved officers to court.

Dastane has pleaded before the Supreme Court that the army
and MoD have reduced the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) --- the
final authority on appointing top commanders --- to a rubber stamp, by placing
before it a single name for each appointment. This violates an earlier Supreme
Court judgment which had ruled in 2000 (Union of India versus Lt Gen Rajendra
Singh Kadyan) that appointments should be on merit as well as eligibility, with
the ACC choosing between at least two candidates for each appointment, rather
than merely rubber-stamping the appointment of the senior-most eligible
candidate.

The army and MoD told the AFT that they internally evaluated
seven eligible officers who senior enough to be considered. The AFT judgment
notes that “there was no Selection Committee constituted”, but the army chief
and the MoD zeroed in on two candidates for two posts and sent the names to the
ACC. The AFT concludes that the principle of merit was thus kept in mind.

Dastane is challenging this conclusion. In addition, he contends
that the army illegally undermined the “discipline and vigilance ban” (DV ban)
policy. His petition argues that, on May 31, 2012 --- the day army chief, General
VK Singh, and western army commander, Lt Gen Shankar Ghosh, retired --- Lt Gen
Sanjiv Chachra and Dastane himself, the two senior-most lieutenant generals eligible
to become army commanders, should have been recommended to fill their vacancies
the same day. Lt Gen Dalbir Singh, while senior to both, was ineligible, having
received a “show cause notice” from the army chief, General VK Singh, for a rogue
intelligence operation. Dalbir, therefore, was under a DV Ban.

Inexplicably, the MoD moved to elevate only Chachra to army
commander. It left the second vacancy unfilled, pending a decision on Dalbir’s DV
Ban. The new chief, General Bikram Singh, quickly lifted the ban on June 8 and
Dalbir was appointed army commander on June 15.

Dastane contends that this effectively “reserved” a vacancy
for Dalbir Singh for 15 days, until his DV ban could be lifted. The AFT has
rejected that contention, but the Supreme Court will examine it afresh.

The backdrop to this was bitter internal feuding between Gen
VK Singh on the one hand; and his successor, Gen Bikram Singh and Lt Gen Dalbir
Singh on the other. With Gen VK Singh trying to amend his date of birth and
gain an additional year in office, he was targeting Bikram and Dalbir as
beneficiaries of his early departure.

An army commander is a senior lieutenant general, appointed
to head one of the army’s six geographical commands --- the western, northern,
central, eastern, southern and southwestern commands. A seventh “functional
command” is the Shimla-based Army Training Command (ARTRAC). In addition, army
generals take turns, alternating with their navy and air force counterparts, to
command the tri-service Andaman & Nicobar Command (ANC) in Port Blair.

To be appointed army commander, a lieutenant general should
have successfully commanded one of the army’s fourteen corps, and also have two
years of service left before retirement at the age of 60. The ACC selects army
commanders from a list of eligible names forwarded by army headquarters (AHQ), through
the MoD.

The BJP, many
presumed, would reverse India’s pledge of “No First Use” (NFU) of nuclear
weapons, which allows nukes to be used only against entities that have struck
Indian targets with weapons of mass destruction. This assumption was based on
the BJP’s April 7 election manifesto, which undertook to “Study in detail
India’s nuclear doctrine, and revise and update it, to make it relevant to
challenges of current times.” This boilerplate formulation, which says absolutely
nothing about reversing NFU, was inserted into the manifesto without any serious
discussion within the BJP on nuclear policy. Yet party spokespersons like
Seshadri Chari, Nirmala Sitharaman and Ravi Shankar Prasad, all unschooled in
nuclear policy, responded in gung-ho fashion to media questions about an NFU
review. The clarification on Monday by BJP president, Rajnath Singh, that no
review of NFU was planned is a disappointment to many who touted the
muscularity of the BJP’s security policy.

Yet India’s
nuclear doctrine badly needs a review. While the NFU pledge must quickly be
scrapped, the ill-conceived commitment to “massive retaliation” is even more
damaging to our nuclear credibility. Fifteen years ago, facing tight international
sanctions, we needed a restrained doctrine. Today, with the security
environment more challenging than ever, India’s nuclear doctrine must
complicate the calculus of opponents, not simplify it as the single-minded
focus on massive retaliation does.

The
existing nuclear doctrine --- initially issued as a “draft nuclear doctrine” in
August 1999, and solidified (in slightly changed form) through a gazette
notification on January 4, 2003 --- pledges that India “will not be the first
to initiate a nuclear strike, but will respond with massive retaliation should
deterrence fail. India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear
weapons against states which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned
with nuclear weapons powers.”

In simple
terms this means that India will wait to get nuked before it fires nukes. Once
nuked --- even by a small, tactical nuclear weapon fired by, say, Pakistan on
its own soil against an Indian armoured offensive, that destroys one squadron
of 14 tanks and kills 45 Indian soldiers --- New Delhi’s response will be
automatic. India’s massive retaliation will unleash most of its 80-100 nuclear
weapons against Pakistani towns and cities, that are termed “counter-value
targets.”

Since
Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is currently larger than India’s, and is dispersed
and sheltered across that country, New Delhi will be visited by retaliation from
the smoking ruins of Pakistan. In what is termed a “second strike”, that
country’s nuclear command authority, safe in underground command posts, will
fire its surviving nukes --- and there will be many --- at New Delhi, Mumbai
and other Indian cities within the 2500-kilometre range of Pakistan’s
Shaheen-II ballistic missiles. In this chain of events, most of Pakistan and
large swathes of India will be transformed into radioactive wastelands and
hundreds of millions of people killed. Remember, this level of destruction
follows from a single tactical nuclear weapon, fired by Pakistan at its own
territory. Most rational people would find this scenario incredible.

Indeed, New
Delhi’s massive retaliation strategy rests on the belief that Pakistani policymakers
are rational actors, who will avoid this cataclysm. Yet even rational actors
behave irrationally when under enormous stress, such as an existential threat
to one’s country. While New Delhi’s nuclear theologians bet our lives on the
rationality of Pakistani generals, is that generous assessment corroborated by Pakistan’s
heedless plunge into the abyss of radicalism and jihad?

Should
India’s leaders have no choice but “suicide or surrender”? Remember that New
Delhi, under BJP rule in 1999 (Kargil) and 2001-02 (Parliament attack), and
under Congress rule in 2008 (Mumbai attack) shrank from employing even conventional
military force against Pakistan. Will New Delhi sanction massive nuclear
retaliation that could lead to the aptly-termed MAD ---mutual assured
destruction? Probably not, which is why the misconceived massive retaliation strategy
must be revisited even before NFU.

There are
lessons here from the United States’ experience in the 1950s. President Dwight
D Eisenhower, who was elected in 1953, and Secretary of State John Foster
Dulles adopted a “massive retaliation” strategy against the Soviet Union, based
on clear US nuclear superiority in an era when Russian delivery systems could not cross
the Atlantic. In October 1953, the seminal National Security Council Paper
162/2 first used the term “massive retaliation.” In January 1954, Dulles threatened
that America would “depend primarily upon a great capacity to retaliate,
instantly, by means and at places of our own choosing.”

Yet Dulles
could see that massive retaliation was not a credible threat, especially as
Soviet retaliatory power grew. Writing in Foreign
Affairs in April 1954, Dulles shifted towards a so-called “flexible
response.” Suggesting that massive retaliation was one of many options, Dulles
wrote, “It should not be stated in advance precisely what would be the scope of
military action if new aggression occurred… That is a matter as to which the
aggressor had best remain ignorant. But he can know… that the choice in this
respect is ours and not his.”

In the early
1960s, President John F Kennedy’s no-nonsense secretary of defence, Robert
McNamara, could see that Kennedy needed usable options. Threatening the deaths
of 360-450 million people in the Sino-Soviet block might deter a Soviet nuclear
strike, but was hardly executable if deterrence failed. That led to a formal
“flexible response” doctrine, in which assured destruction was only the apex of
a long escalation ladder.

India’s
doctrine must create similar options, allowing policymakers every possibility
in a crisis --- pre-emptive strike, counter-force and counter-value targeting,
even assured destruction through massive retaliation. Furthermore, the exclusive
focus on massive retaliation has entirely demilitarised nuclear planning, with
the agents who must deliver nuclear weapons --- the missile forces, the air
force and submarines --- playing little or no role in planning and rehearsing.
This must change.

Tuesday, 8 April 2014

The BJP’s unusually
detailed defence manifesto, which forms part of the “BJP Election Manifesto
2014” that was released in New Delhi on Monday, appears to be a mix of polemic,
populism, plagiarism and pragmatic planning.

Significantly
for a party that is often accused of pursuing a divisive, majoritarian agenda,
the BJP has defined security in comprehensive terms --- specifically mentioning
“social cohesion and harmony” as a component of national security along with
“military security; economic security; cyber security; energy, food and water
and health security.”

Predictably
attacking the UPA’s custodianship of security, the BJP holds it responsible for
border intrusions by China, the shortage of combat aircraft in the air force, multiple
accidents involving naval vessels, Maoist attacks, a growing presence of “Pakistan
backed terror groups” and illegal immigration from Bangladesh. While these issues
are mostly real, many go back decades and were grappled with by the NDA
government from 1998-2004.

Like the
BJP’s 1998 manifesto, which made substantive promises, e.g. to test nuclear weapons,
the current manifesto makes important commitments on crucial issues. It pledges
to “Study in detail India's nuclear doctrine, and revise and update it, to make
it relevant to challenges of current times.” This has set off speculation that
a BJP government would reconsider, if not abandon, the “No First Use” policy that
New Delhi has so far held. The manifesto also pledges to “Maintain a credible
minimum deterrent that is in tune with changing geostatic realities.” It is
unclear whether this means a larger nuclear arsenal, or the creation of an
arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) to counter Pakistan’s much-hyped TNW
weapons.

Promising
to restructure higher defence management --- a measure that the NDA shied away
from whilst in power --- the BJP has promised to “ensure greater participation
of Armed Forces in the decision-making process of the Ministry of Defence.”
This would involve integrating the MoD with the service headquarters, and
creating structures where uniformed soldiers worked alongside bureaucrats, even
as their bosses. After a Group of Ministers proposed this measure in 2001, the
BJP encountered strong opposition from bureaucrats, eventually leading to the
creation of a halfway house --- the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS), where the
three services work together but the MoD remains aloof. Like the BJP, the UPA
has gone along with this tokenism for the last decade.

The BJP
manifesto promises to make up officer shortages within the three services,
which currently function with just 75 per cent of their authorised officers. In
February, Defence Minister AK Antony told the Lok Sabha that the services were
short of 12,372 officers.

A serving
general who deals with manpower says this would involve serious difficulties.
These include motivating large numbers of high calibre youths to join the
military, and expanding training facilities to handle more trainees. The
manifesto is silent on how this would be handled.

The BJP
says it will “Modernize armed forces, and increase the R&D in defence, with
a goal of developing indigenous defence technologies and fast tracking of
defence purchases.” There is no elaboration of how this would be done, how much
additional funding would be allotted to R&D, or what the BJP would do
differently from its earlier tenure, when defence minister George Fernandes lamented
that equipment modernisation had been stalled by “the three Cs” --- the CBI,
CVC and CAG.

The BJP manifesto
carefully woos servicemen and their families. It promises to build a national
war memorial, an emotive and longstanding demand from ex-servicemen lobbies
that point to the incongruity of honouring Indian martyrs at India Gate in New
Delhi --- a monument built by colonial power to commemorate Indians who died
for the British Empire. The BJP’s promise to fulfil this demand does not
mention where it would be built.

The growing
political clout of ex-servicemen is also evident in the BJP promise to appoint
a “Veterans Commission” for addressing problems of retired soldiers, sailors
and airmen. This borrows from the Congress Party’s manifesto promise of a
“National Commission for Ex-Servicemen.” The Congress claims credit for setting
up the “Department of Ex-Servicemen’s Welfare” in the MoD. However, veterans
complain about the insensitivity of this department, which has done much to
push many ex-servicemen into the BJP fold.

The BJP
manifesto attempts to benefit from measures already announced by the UPA. It
promises to implement “one rank, one pension”, a measure already announced in
the UPA’s last budget. It also promises to digitise all defence land records,
something that Antony has told parliament is complete.

Significantly,
the BJP’s new manifesto is silent on defence spending, even though the UPA has
brought down spending to a 52-year low of 1.74 per cent of GDP.

In 1998,
the BJP manifesto had noted “the country's defence budget has been declining in
real terms… from 3.4 per cent of the GDP in 1989-90 to a mere 2.2 per cent this
year (i.e. 1998-99). After six years in power, the BJP managed to raise defence
spending to just 2.4 per cent of GDP in 2004-05.

Promising
to boost defence production, the BJP says it will “encourage private sector participation
and investment, including FDI in selected defence industries.” This seems no
different from the current regime, where 26 per cent FDI is permitted, with
higher foreign holding permissible on a case-by-case basis.

The BJP
says “Technology transfer in defence
manufacturing will be encouraged to the maximum.” (emphasis in original).

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

Were this a
straightforward world, the recent unveiling of the Henderson Brooks report would
have conclusively bared the secrets of 1962, answering the burning question:
was the army’s shameful rout at the hands of China due to political
mismanagement or was military incompetence largely to blame? Instead the
Henderson Brooks report itself appears to be, at least partly, a cover up. The
controversy has only become murkier.

Australian
journalist and writer Neville Maxwell earlier this month posted on the Internet
a hitherto “top secret” report on the military debacle of 1962, authored by
Lieutenant General TB Henderson Brooks, a senior Indian Army officer. The so-called
Henderson Brooks Report (HBR), which New Delhi has suppressed since 1963, had
always been rumoured to contain the real answers. Critics of Jawaharlal Nehru,
then prime minister, have alleged for half a century that the report was buried
because it highlighted his political ineptitude. It was never explained why the
BJP-led government failed to declassify the report whilst it governed from 1998
to 2004, or why the military itself has consistently opposed its release.

Like in many
murder mysteries, the corpse turns up on Page 1 of the HBR, with the author making
the startling revelation that his hands were tied from the start by the army
chief --- General JN Chaudhuri, who was appointed after General PN Thapar
resigned in the wake of defeat. Henderson
Brooks reveals that Chaudhuri had issued him “advice” not to review the
functioning of Army Headquarters (hereafter AHQ) in his inquiry. In the army, a
senior commander’s “advice” constitutes an order that is not given in writing. Significantly,
the written orders for the inquiry mention no such restriction.

The author
clearly felt that this restriction subverted his inquiry. He notes that it
would “have been convenient and logical to trace the events from Army
Headquarters and then move down to Commands (the headquarters under AHQ) for
more details, and, finally, ending up with field formations for the battle
itself.”

A
frustrated Henderson Brooks rued that “a number of loose ends concerning Army
Headquarters could not be verified and have been left unanswered. The
relationship between Defence Ministry (hereafter MoD) and Army and the
directions given by the former to the latter could, therefore, also not be
examined.”

Why might
General Chaudhuri have steered Henderson Brooks clear of AHQ and, by extension,
of orders passed by Defence Minister VK Krishna Menon and his MoD officials? We
must fish for that answer in the swirling political-military crosscurrents of
that period, with army generals carefully disassociating themselves from the
discredited General BM Kaul and those close to him --- the so-called “Kaul boys”.
Kaul had leveraged his proximity to Nehru and VK Krishna Menon to bypass
regular command channels (which were supine in any case) in establishing posts
on disputed territory based on a political-intelligence assessment that the
Chinese might bark but they would not bite. Chaudhuri knew that an inquiry that
examined all the written orders, minutes of meetings in AHQ and MoD, and
recorded personal statements from key protagonists might establish the damning
truth --- that there were no “good guys” in 1962. If political direction was
deeply flawed, General Kaul’s self-serving support for the
political-intelligence assumption of Chinese docility led to national
humiliation and 3250 soldiers dead. What better way for a new and ambitious
chief to forge ties with the political leadership than to confine the
inevitable enquiry to tactical issues?

In
reflecting upon the possibility of a motivated cover-up, one must consider the
personalities involved. General Chaudhuri was an articulate, intelligent
cavalry officer about whom contemporaries say; “He was held in high esteem,
especially by himself”. Chaudhuri and his wife were active socialites and would
today be described as Page 3 people. Contemporaries recall their fondness for
Balkan Sobranie cigarettes in stylish holders. Chaudhuri fancied himself one of
the intellectual elite; in violation of norms he wrote a newspaper column for a
national daily, under a pseudonym, even as army chief. His professional acumen
was not impressive; faced with a Pakistani advance in Khemkaran in 1965, he
ordered a retreat that would have handed a large chunk of Punjab to Pakistan.
Fortunately, Lt Gen Harbaksh Singh, his subordinate commander refused to
retreat. This was the chief who whispered to Henderson Brooks not to wield the
broom too vigorously.

Then there
was Henderson Brooks himself, anglicised in accent, habits and outlook, a
general who eventually migrated to Australia --- Neville Maxwell’s country. A
competent, if plodding, officer Henderson Brooks lacked the flair and assertiveness
of contemporaries like Sam Manekshaw. In “outing” Chaudhuri’s apparently
confidential verbal directive to scale down his inquiry, Henderson Brooks must have
surprised his chief.

There must
also have been discomfiture over the HBR’s criticism of the higher military and
political leadership. It pointed out that Krishna Menon’s orders not to keep
records of his meetings absolved everyone of responsibility; termed “militarily
unsound” the assessments of Nehru favourite, Intelligence Bureau chief BN
Mullick; and expressed incredulity at tactical interference by Foreign
Secretary MJ Desai. Was the decision to expand their mandate taken by Henderson
Brooks himself, or by his co-author, the iconic, Victoria Cross winning
Brigadier PS Bhagat?

Yet Henderson
Brooks’ ire was directed mainly at the army’s failure. It is hard to argue with
Srinath Raghavan who says, “(T)he army also bore an institutional
responsibility — one that cannot be attributed merely to a few bad generals.
The simple fact is that, from 1959 to 1962, the Indian army’s professional
capacities at all levels were put to the test — and found badly wanting.”

Of course
this conclusion is incomplete and one-dimensional; the muzzled HBR is as
critical of the political direction of that conflict. Ultimately, the HBR’s
even-handedness may have caused its suppression. With everyone --- the politicians,
the MoD, the AHQ, General Kaul and the field command --- all heavily
criticised, everyone has good reason to suppress the report.